There's a hot debate about whether VCSes should allow developers to'rewrite history' ( in the git sense ). The usual wayto frame the options can be wrapped up as a question: should the VCSallow developers to rewrite history, or forbid it? Put this way, a fairnumber of people will incline towards 'no'.

But this is a misleading and wrong question, because it quietly assumesthat the VCS can actually stop people from rewriting history. Thisis incorrect; no VCS that has

One of reasons that I like Chiaki is that he is that rarity in anime,a competent protagonist who understands his own competence. The usualpattern is that the protagonist is either unskilled (and learns throughthe course of the anime) or is basically an idiot savant, ferociouslyskilled but without understanding.

(Nodame herself is an example of the latter category, and one of thethemes throughout Nodame Cantabile is people trying to get her toharness and direct that ferocious skill, to think about and understandwhat she is doing

I don't use Gnome on my primary machine (it runs a peculiar, entirelycustom environment), but I do use it on a number of secondary machinesand I keep making more or less the same customizations each time. So I'mwriting them down, if only for my own reference on the next machine.

• I disable gnome-terminal's blinking cursor .

• I turn CapsLock into an additional Ctrl. This is in the Keyboardpreferences area, Layout tab, 'Layout options' button, and

I recently ran across MC/S vs MPIO , which is about why iSCSI's 'multipleconnections per session' feature is apparently considered a bad ideaand is not likely to be implemented in Linux, the short summary beingthat it is an iSCSI specific duplication of generic multipathingfunctionality. Unfortunately, I sort of disagree with this in practice.

In theory I don't care about how my multipathing is done, I just wantsomething that makes general iSCSI multipathing work right. In practice,right now generic multipathing

Suppose that you have a 'sender stores message' email system, and thatyou protect yourself against the sender rewriting the message after it'sinitially sent by sending and verifying a secure hash of the messagebefore you show the message to the user. To follow up a recent entry , here are the social and technical issuesthat I can see with this hash protection scheme.

First and largest, you have a social issue; users are going to reactbadly to 'this message is (minorly) corrupt so I